Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to continue the discussion on the point made by our friend from North Carolina. He is going to be the ranking member on the forestry subcommittee. He and I are going to sit next to each other for a great many hours during the course of this session of the Senate. I know there are going to be many times when we agree because that has certainly been the case during our long years of service, both in the House and it is now an honor to serve with him in the Senate. I wish to pick up on a couple of points. Senator Craig, in the very important discussion he had with the Senator from North Carolina, pointed out that North Carolina already spends every dollar of their county payments money. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina indicated his concern about the 40-percent graduation rate in one of his school districts. But the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina will not provide an additional dollar for that school district because under his State statute, every dollar of county payments his State gets already has to go to schools, and the amendment would not change that. I think this has been a very instructive discussion. As Senators consider the next 15 or 20 minutes of this debate, I want to come back to where the organizations that are most intimately involved in this program, on a day-to-day basis, stand. The Senator from North Carolina made mention of our support from labor. We are very proud to have a strong cross-section of labor groups that are aligned with our proposal. But in addition, the support from the National Association of Counties and the National Governors Association for our bipartisan effort is particularly important. I wish to read a little bit from the National Association of Counties' letter to myself and Senator Craig. It says, with respect to Senator Burr--and the National Association of Counties does not talk about anonymous Senators. They are very much aware of who is involved in this debate. The National Association of Counties wrote: While well-intentioned, we fear the Burr amendment is ill- conceived and would result in negative consequences. They go on to say: The Burr amendment requires ``new money'' to be spent on education. This would deny communities and their elected leaders to set their own priorities, superimposing a Washington, DC, one-size-fits-all mandate on those rural forest counties already severely restrained by the presence of tax-exempt federal land. This is a particularly important point and a very telling one about this debate. I think the Senator from North Carolina and I have been in scores of discussions over the years where the charge always was it was the Democrats who were coming up with this ``big Government, run from Washington, DC,'' kind of approach. Here we are with a bipartisan amendment that I, as a Democratic Senator, spent a lot of time talking about with local communities, and the counties say they favor our approach because it does give them the flexibility on the ground--in Asheville, NC, and Amity, OR, across the country, to make the choices that are best for them rather than to have somebody inside the beltway take out a cookie cutter and stamp all these programs as if one size fits all. That point in the National Association of Counties' letter strikes me as extremely important as well. The counties also go on to say: . . . .it appears that the Burr amendment would shift the hard-won increase to PILT funding [the payment in lieu of taxes program offered by the Wyden Craig amendment] away from the counties' general funds to schools, which was never the purpose of the PILT Act. I say to my colleague, we are going to hear a lot of testimony about this in our forestry subcommittee as well. The changes in the PILT Program, in particular, so that every county with Federal land can get a boost, are going to be especially helpful as we make this transition.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the debate time on the two amendments--the Wyden amendment, the bipartisan amendment and the Burr amendment--be extended until 11 a.m. and that the time be equally divided, which would mean, I think, we would have 10 minutes on our side so that I and Senator Craig would continue this discussion and then the distinguished Senator from North Carolina would have 10 minutes as well. I make that unanimous consent request.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think the Senate has had a chance--and I thank particularly my friend from Idaho for coming to the floor today-- to get a sense of what this issue is all about. I close by saying that Senator Craig and I and all those who have been involved in this issue understand that as a result of this updated, modernized approach to the Secure Rural Schools Act, we are going to make sure the rural communities of this country can survive and help them make a transition into other areas. Senator Craig and I held many hearings and have heard from rural communities about how they would like to have very strong thinning programs. This is something you don't know a whole lot about in Baltimore, Mr. President, but we have a lot of overstocked stands in our part of the country. If you don't thin them out, it makes for a big fire risk. If you thin them out, you bring the communities together-- labor folks, environmentalists, and others--and you deal with the fire risk and get the material to the mill. Plus you put people to work. Senator Craig and I and others on our committee are prepared to have those kinds of programs. However, if these rural communities can't survive, and I am of the view that many of them won't without this amendment, then we are not in a position to look at the next steps, which are approaches like I have outlined for thinning and biomass, where we take the woody waste off the forest floor, which makes for clean energy. Senator Craig and I have heard a great deal of testimony about that. I hope our colleagues will support the bipartisan amendment that Senator Craig and I have talked about this morning, along with 17 of our colleagues, and reject the Burr amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from Idaho for an excellent assessment of where we are now, both with respect to the need here and our bipartisan amendment. Here is what it is going to come down to, colleagues. There are going to be two different approaches. One is offered by the Senator from North Carolina, the other is a bipartisan one offered by many Senators, and I and Senator Craig have outlined it. Ours is supported by the groups that have the most expertise in this area: the National Association of Counties, educators, labor organizations, and those who are on the ground. The Senator from North Carolina seeks to dictate from Washington, DC, how this program would operate. I will just say to the Senate, it seems to me what is best for Ashville, NC, may not be best for Amity, OR. Let's make sure these local communities have the freedom to make choices, make judgments with respect to essential services in the law enforcement area and in the roads area. I pointed out yesterday that if the approach offered by the Senator from North Carolina were to prevail, we couldn't, for example, do upkeep of rural roads, which get very snowy in the winter. If we don't make improvements in them, the kids aren't even going to get to the schools, which is the point my colleague from Idaho has mentioned as well. As Senators think about this, I would like to also stress that this is not some kind of welfare program. I know many Senators are still not up on all the details. They do not live and breathe this subject on a daily basis as Senator Craig and I do, but these are not handout payments. This is not welfare. This is part of a 100-year deal which came about when the Federal forest system was created. As we move on our side to the end of our presentation, I would like for folks to understand what the stakes are in rural communities and give some accounts from my State that are very similar to what Senators are hearing from officials in their States. In my State, for example, the sheriff of Grants Pass--and I was recently there for a community meeting--told me that without county payments funding, he may have to call out the National Guard to protect public safety. The approach that is offered by the Senator from North Carolina wouldn't make it possible for those local law enforcement officials to be on the front lines in terms of fighting crime, in terms of fighting meth, which is a scourge in so many communities across our country. The county commissioners of Curry County, a beautiful community on the Oregon coast, report that without county payments funding, they may have no choice but to dissolve their county altogether. They have already begun discussions with our State about dissolving the county. You can be sure if county payments funding is not available, those discussions will continue and, in my view, based on a recent community meeting there, I am of the view that their county may not survive. Local officials in Coos County, just at the prospect of losing county payment funds, have already been releasing prisoners. So when people talk about what this issue can mean and what it really comes down to in local communities, this isn't an abstract issue in Coos County, OR. They have released prisoners--they have released prisoners--and they are going to lay off people who have had 25 years of service in that community. There are reports in the newspaper that they have already been terminated from their jobs, and I believe that we are going to see, in other communities across this country, similar problems. I understand my friend from Idaho would like me to yield to him, and I am happy to do so.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is my intent to take a couple of minutes to lay out the reason it is so important to pass this county payments amendment this morning. Then I plan to yield 5 minutes to my good friend and teammate on this issue, Senator Craig, and then it is my intent to close for our side. This issue of county payments funding is literally an issue of survival for rural counties across this country. It is going to determine whether the Federal Government will keep a more than 100-year obligation to rural communities or whether the Federal Government is going to turn its back on these communities and allow them to become national sacrifice zones. Mr. President, 100 years ago, the Federal Government entered into an agreement with rural communities in exchange for creating national forests and restricting how local communities manage their forest lands. The Government would provide a partial payment so those local communities could pay for essential services, such as law enforcement and education. But the most recent law guaranteeing those payments--the law the distinguished Senator from Idaho and I wrote, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act--has expired. If the law is not extended--the safety net payments rural communities need in order to carry out essential services--without those dollars, there will be havoc in rural communities across our country. The votes the Senate is going to soon take are going to decide the future of a lot of these rural communities, and there are two approaches. First, there is the approach Senator Craig and I and a bipartisan group of 17 Senators favor that is flexible, that ensures we don't make the decisions in Washington, DC, we don't micromanage these local communities but give them the flexibility at the local level to make choices that make sense for them. This legislation is sponsored by both Republican Senators from Idaho, both Democratic Senators from Washington State, and many others. We have a broad coalition. The National Association of Counties, labor groups, education advocates--all have said that the approach that makes sense for them is our bipartisan amendment, and they have not been in favor of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina. I am now going to make 5 minutes from our time available to my friend and colleague, Senator Craig. I thank him again for his support.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Hatch and Senator Rockefeller as cosponsors of our bipartisan amendment.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from Arizona is here, but I wish to briefly respond to the comments of Senator Burr. When we do vote, again I would highlight that I hope Senators, on a bipartisan basis, for the amendment I am offering on behalf of the large group that includes Senator Smith, Senator Domenici, Senator Craig, Senator Murkowski, and a great many Senators on the other side, virtually every Democrat, will reject the Burr amendment. Here is the difference, and it is striking. The Burr amendment, offered by our distinguished colleague from North Carolina, sets in place a Federal mandate. It is a one-size-fits-all approach that somehow we ought to decide here in Washington, DC what happens in these local communities. What I have decided, with our bipartisan coalition, is we ought to have an approach that gives local communities a lot of flexibility and a lot of freedom to design approaches that are tailor made to their area. I have mentioned law enforcement, for example, as one critical area a local community might want to support under the approach I offer with our bipartisan group but which cannot be offered under the approach of the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, and there would be other examples as well. For example, if a community was concerned about its roads and was troubled about the prospect that their roads were dangerous, so that, for example, in the snowy seasons it would be treacherous for kids to get to school, under our amendment local communities would have the flexibility to support some of that upkeep for local roads. I have been told in communities such as Fossil, in my home State, they don't think they even have a roads program without the county payments legislation. So there are stark differences between the approach offered by the Senator from North Carolina and the bipartisan approach I am offering today with many of our colleagues. At the end of the day, the difference is the Senator from North Carolina is offering a Federal mandate which ties the hands of local communities and local school districts, and I gather is one of the reasons some educational advocates have already come out against the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina. I hope our colleagues will support the approach we are advocating today which gives local communities real flexibility, ensures that the Federal Government is keeping its obligation--its more than 100-year obligation--to these rural communities, but updates it, as we have sought to do with this payment in lieu of taxes provision in our amendment and with the new formula--a formula, as the distinguished Senator from Washington, the manager of the legislation, mentioned was arrived at only through some very difficult negotiations with many Senators involved. So when Senators vote in a few minutes, I hope they will support the amendment I am offering today, with the large group of bipartisan sponsors, and reject the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina which, in my view, is a Federal mandate that greatly limits the ability to make the best use of these county payments dollars.

Mr. WYDEN. I have no objection.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a great many Senators of both political parties have signed on as cosponsors of this legislation: the distinguished Senate majority leader; the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus; chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman; Senators Smith, Domenici, Craig, Stevens, Bennett, Cantwell, Boxer, Murray, Crapo, Tester, and Murkowski. A great many Senators have agreed to be cosponsors. My understanding is that, perhaps, in a few minutes the Senate is going to be given a choice of two approaches on how to deal with this issue: the approach that I and a large bipartisan group of Senators are offering this afternoon or an approach that will be offered by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, our colleague, Senator Burr, which, in my view, is very restrictive and, unfortunately, it is not in line with what Senator Craig and I sought to do on a bipartisan basis back in 2000. Our law that was enacted at that time was called the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the proposal offered by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina would, for example, make it very difficult for local law enforcement to get some of these essential dollars that have been absolutely critical to public safety for all these years. My view is that, under our bipartisan proposal, local law enforcement would have at least a fair measure of the resources they need to fight methamphetamine in local communities across the country. Our colleague from North Carolina, in his approach, would not make that possible. So I hope that, as colleagues consider this debate, they will vote in favor of the amendment I offer this afternoon, on behalf of the large group of Senators of both political parties who have been intimately involved in this program for many years. Our amendment is fully paid for through the good work of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and I hope our colleagues will vote for our amendment and will reject the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, which is much more restrictive and, unfortunately, forgets the second part of the legislation that is so vital to rural communities and that is law enforcement and roads and other essential services. I had a chance to speak on this earlier, so I will be brief. Other colleagues would like to speak as well. The reality in rural America and the rural West is that communities are about to fall off a financial cliff. They are going to lose these essential funds that have been part of a Federal obligation for more than a hundred years. It is not a welfare program. It is not some kind of a handout that goes to rural communities in the West. These are communities where the Federal Government owns most of the land. The local community is not allowed to maximize its revenues on those lands because the Federal Government has essentially said we are not going to treat them as private property, where you generate a sale and revenue and you pay for essential services. So the Federal Government entered into an agreement more than a hundred years ago to provide compensation to those local communities where the Federal Government owned most of the land. What our bipartisan group wants to do is update and modernize that obligation that was incurred more than a hundred years ago when the Federal forest system was established. Our amendment would resolve the budget crisis that is confronting rural communities by fully funding the County Payments Program for 2007, and then we set in place a formula that was negotiated for many months through a large group of Senators. I have the chart indicating the new formula that has been put into place. It makes it very clear that Senators understand this program, because of the will of this body, ought to be modernized. That is what we have done. But in addition to that effort, we have made sure the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, which compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from Federal lands in that State, would receive support as well. And every county in our country with Federal land would benefit from this particular program. The emergency funding is what gets us over the first year of the program; it is a 5-year program. Senator Baucus has been willing because he feels strongly about making sure when the Federal Government steps in and goes to bat for rural communities, that it will be fully paid for. On the Senate Finance Committee, because of Chairman Baucus's leadership, we are going to raise those funds by closing tax loopholes. I know my friend from North Carolina is going so speak in a moment. I wish to note, again, a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are supporting this: Senators Smith, Domenici, Craig, Crapo, Stevens, Bennett, and Murkowski. They have all said that this amendment is the way to go if you want to stand up for rural communities. But if you want to make a break with 100 years' worth of history and not even give rural communities the opportunity to get support, as they historically have, for local law enforcement, then Senators can vote for the amendment offered by our colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr. I hope my colleagues will not do that. We are going to have two votes. One will be on the amendment I offered with that large bipartisan group of Senators I listed. I hope Senators will vote in favor of that amendment. There will be another amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina. For the reasons I have described this afternoon, I hope Senators will vote against that. Keep in mind that under the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina, if you have people who are concerned about local law enforcement they are not, under the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, going to be able to get support as it relates to law enforcement--the needed support to fight meth and to be able to protect public safety in their communities. That is why the large coalition I have described this afternoon is in favor of what I am proposing. The Senator from North Carolina has come to the floor. I have enormous respect for him. He is going to be the ranking member on the subcommittee. We don't happen to see eye to eye on this issue. I point out that the predecessor of the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Craig, is a cosponsor of this amendment. He remembers the history from back in 2000, when we came together. It is my intent to allow the Senator from North Carolina time to offer his amendment as well, and then at that time I would like to respond to what the distinguished Senator from North Carolina said about his amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up our bipartisan amendment on County Payments and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program.

Mr. WYDEN. I would be happy to proceed, but I recognize the manager on our side.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up my bipartisan amendment on county payments and the payment in lieu of taxes.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has indicated he would speak very briefly. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois could speak for his 5 minutes, and with the floor manager coming on to the floor, that we could then turn to the county payments legislation after the Senator from Illinois has spoken for 5 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in a few minutes I will offer a bipartisan amendment to address the great needs of rural communities across this country. It is an amendment I will offer on behalf of myself, the distinguished Senate majority leader, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee; my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith; Senator Craig of Idaho, Senator Domenici, and a large additional group of Senators of both political parties who wish to see reauthorized the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act which is also known as the County Payments Program. Mr. President and colleagues, without this amendment, there is a very real prospect small counties in the rural West are going to fall into the Pacific Ocean. These small counties are now standing on the abyss because without county payments funding, they simply are not going to be able to pay for critical services such as law enforcement and rural education. In Oregon, the sheriff of Grants Pass told me without county payments funding, he may have to call out the National Guard to protect public safety. The county commissioners of Curry County report that without county payments funding, they may have no choice but to dissolve their county altogether. Local officials in Coos County, just at the prospect of losing county payments funds, have already released prisoners from their jails. Local communities in many other States face similar hardships. Some Senators may not yet be fully aware of what the county payments law is about, so I am going to give a brief explanation of how the program has come to be. County payments are not welfare, but they are a more than 100-year- old Federal obligation that goes back to the creation of the Federal forest system. The deal was if Federal policy prevented local communities from maximizing their revenues from their forests, the Federal Government would provide a partial payment to these local communities so they could pay for essential services such as law enforcement and schools. As environmental values changed in the 1990s, and these payments grew even smaller, Senator Craig of Idaho and I wrote the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. That law compensated these rural communities for part of what they needed to pay for essential services. The act has worked extraordinarily well and expired at the end of last year. In this amendment, our large bipartisan coalition--and I read only a number of the Senators from both political parties who are sponsoring this amendment--our large group seeks to put in place a new updated lifeline to small rural counties. County payments would be extended for 5 years and a new formula put in place to provide greater funding to more than 80 percent of the counties in our country. The formula is based on the current funding formula for county payments and the acreage of U.S. Forest Service and eligible Bureau of Land Management lands, along with a mechanism to focus support on those communities where there is greatest economic need. In addition to the County Payments Program, this amendment also assists States with a similar program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. This is a program which compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from Federal lands in their State. For the first time in modern history, this program will receive full funding, and it will result in additional support for each county with Federal land. I note at this time, particularly, the exceptional work done by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who, with Senator Bingaman and so many of our colleagues of both political parties, has been involved in these efforts. As a result of those combined efforts, this amendment is paid for with all funding beyond 2007 paid for by closing tax loopholes that have been identified by Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. This bipartisan amendment is supported by a diverse coalition, including the National Association of Counties, many labor organizations, and education advocates across the country. I urge the Senate this afternoon to recognize the exceptional urgency of this situation and to support the bipartisan effort to reauthorize the County Payments Program and to strengthen the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. Rural communities across this country have been hit with a wrecking ball. With the change in environmental values, we have seen many of them, as they look to diversify their economies, reach out and find new industries, yet they have still had great difficulty in paying for essential services. As they try to meet these challenges--and I am committed, as chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee, to work on finding new economic opportunities for these rural communities--the country should not turn its back on rural America as it looks to come up with vibrant, new economic prospects for the future. These laws--the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and the law that puts in place the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program--provide essential funding and will be a lifeline as these communities work to transition into additional areas that make sense for resource-based economies. Today, these small communities are asking the Senate to help them from falling into the abyss. The blow to rural communities, if they lose county payments, will be a crippling blow that, in my view, some rural counties simply will not be able to recover from. Mr. President and colleagues, let us remember rural America as we consider this legislation. I hope Senators of both political parties will join the very large block of Democratic and Republican Senators who offer this amendment today. Mr. President, we are waiting for a manager on the other side. A number of colleagues, particularly the Senator from Illinois, has been very gracious and very patient. I think what I wish to do is yield at this time. When a manager comes, we will resume deliberations. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his patience.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would be happy to do that. Amendment No. 709 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the bipartisan amendment I will be offering as soon as we have a manager on the other side to conduct business.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment--is the distinguished Senator from North Carolina intending to manage this legislation?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on Election Day 2006 in Tillamook County, OR, 13 inches of rain fell. Roads were closed. Parts of the county became unreachable. Governor Kulongoski declared a state of emergency. And yet--70 percent of the voters in the county still cast their ballots. Why? Because Oregonians in Tillamook County and all over the State cast their votes by mail. Even without weather like this, folks in other States around the country had trouble casting their votes. In Denver, CO, hundreds of voters were turned away when the database of registered voters crashed. Nearly a quarter of precincts in Indianapolis, IN, resorted to paper ballots when poll workers couldn't figure out how to connect optical scan voting machines with the new touch-screen models. In Johnson County, KS, poll workers used hand lotion to prevent the county's touch-screen voting machines from spitting out cards. In Missouri, poll workers were demanding photo identification despite a court ruling barring the practice. In Shaker Heights, OH, voters were turned from the polls when electronic voting machines failed to work. Voters in Washington State received phone calls instructing them to vote at the wrong precinct. A polling location in New Mexico received 150 ballots instead of 1,500. The list goes on and on. The point is, vote by mail has worked in Oregon and not just in this election, but in every election it has been used. It's a pretty simple system. Voters get their ballots in the mail. Wherever and whenever they would like, right up to Election Day, voters complete their ballots and return them. Vote by mail makes polling place problems a thing of the past--no more polls opening late and no more long lines. There's no more confusion about whether you are on the voter rolls. Either you get the ballot in the mail, or you don't and if you don't, you have ample time to contact your election officials to sort it out. Vote by mail dramatically reduces the chance of voter fraud. Trained election officials match the signature on each ballot against the signature on each voter's registration card and no ballot is processed or counted until officials are satisfied that the two signatures match. Vote by mail ensures a paper trail--each voter marks up their ballot and sends it in. That ballot is counted and then becomes the paper record used in the event of a recount. There's less risk of voter intimidation and that's why a 2003 study of Oregon voters showed that those groups that would likely be most vulnerable to coercion, including the elderly, actually prefer vote by mail. Vote by mail leads to more educated voters. Because folks get their ballots weeks before the election, they have the time they need to get educated about the candidates and the issues, and deliberate in a way not possible at a polling place. And vote by mail generates costs savings that can be spent on other priorities like education, law enforcement and roads. Because there is no longer any need to transport equipment to polling stations and to hire and train poll workers, Oregon has reduced its election-related costs by 30 percent since implementing vote by mail. I think the Oregon experience can be copied elsewhere and that's why I am introducing my Vote by Mail Act of 2007 today, which creates a three year, $18 million grant program to help states adopt vote by mail election systems like the one that Oregon voters have been successfully using for some time now. To participate in the grant program, States must demonstrate that the vote by mail system they intend to implement includes the same elements that have made Oregon's system so successful, including a system for recording electronically each voter's registration and signature and a process for ensuring that the signature on each VBM ballot is verified against that voter's electronically recorded signature. States that decide to participate in the program have the option of adopting vote by mail State-wide, within a group of selected counties, or even in a single county. States transitioning to vote by mail State-wide will receive $2 million. States transitioning to VBM less than State-wide will receive $1 million. I think that vote by mail will improve the elections in every State that adopts it. But to be sure, my bill instructs the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the benefits of vote by mail and to produce a study comparing traditional voting methods and vote by mail. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to the Vote by Mail Act of 2007. I believe it can help ensure hassle-free elections and help rebuild confidence in our election system. Because right now, some folks feel like they are so powerless to do anything to fix things that they throw their hands in the air and walk away. And society suffers. For democracies to work there needs to be public engagement. But that requires a sense of investedness--unless I think of the government as my government, which means it's considering my interests and, more importantly, trying to solve them, it's pretty hard to stay invested. The sense of resignation, of frustration, even dislocation, expressed by some folks troubles me. And I consider it my job to foster a greater sense of public investment. This means making sure that the government works for everyone and that there are tangible results that you can show people so that they understand that it's their government and that it works for them. I think election reform like my vote by mail bill accomplishes this goal at the most basic level. Without fair, trouble-free elections, you've got serious problems. You don't even get past go. The public can't have confidence in its government if it doesn't have confidence in the system that elected that government. As we saw in 2000 in Florida, it is extremely difficult to untangle problems after Election Day so you really have to get it right the first time. Vote by mail helps ensures this. I am pleased to have my esteemed colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry as an original co-sponsor. I am also pleased that Congresswoman Susan David of California is introducing the House companion bill. I am also happy to announce that the American Association of People with Disabilities, the American Postal Workers Union, Common Cause, and the National Association of Postal Supervisors are publicly supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on Election Day 2006 in Tillamook County, OR, 13 inches of rain fell. Roads were closed. Parts of the county became unreachable. Governor Kulongoski declared a state of emergency. And yet--70 percent of the voters in the county still cast their ballots. Why? Because Oregonians in Tillamook County and all over the State cast their votes by mail. Even without weather like this, folks in other States around the country had trouble casting their votes. In Denver, CO, hundreds of voters were turned away when the database of registered voters crashed. Nearly a quarter of precincts in Indianapolis, IN, resorted to paper ballots when poll workers couldn't figure out how to connect optical scan voting machines with the new touch-screen models. In Johnson County, KS, poll workers used hand lotion to prevent the county's touch-screen voting machines from spitting out cards. In Missouri, poll workers were demanding photo identification despite a court ruling barring the practice. In Shaker Heights, OH, voters were turned from the polls when electronic voting machines failed to work. Voters in Washington State received phone calls instructing them to vote at the wrong precinct. A polling location in New Mexico received 150 ballots instead of 1,500. The list goes on and on. The point is, vote by mail has worked in Oregon and not just in this election, but in every election it has been used. It's a pretty simple system. Voters get their ballots in the mail. Wherever and whenever they would like, right up to Election Day, voters complete their ballots and return them. Vote by mail makes polling place problems a thing of the past--no more polls opening late and no more long lines. There's no more confusion about whether you are on the voter rolls. Either you get the ballot in the mail, or you don't and if you don't, you have ample time to contact your election officials to sort it out. Vote by mail dramatically reduces the chance of voter fraud. Trained election officials match the signature on each ballot against the signature on each voter's registration card and no ballot is processed or counted until officials are satisfied that the two signatures match. Vote by mail ensures a paper trail--each voter marks up their ballot and sends it in. That ballot is counted and then becomes the paper record used in the event of a recount. There's less risk of voter intimidation and that's why a 2003 study of Oregon voters showed that those groups that would likely be most vulnerable to coercion, including the elderly, actually prefer vote by mail. Vote by mail leads to more educated voters. Because folks get their ballots weeks before the election, they have the time they need to get educated about the candidates and the issues, and deliberate in a way not possible at a polling place. And vote by mail generates costs savings that can be spent on other priorities like education, law enforcement and roads. Because there is no longer any need to transport equipment to polling stations and to hire and train poll workers, Oregon has reduced its election-related costs by 30 percent since implementing vote by mail. I think the Oregon experience can be copied elsewhere and that's why I am introducing my Vote by Mail Act of 2007 today, which creates a three year, $18 million grant program to help states adopt vote by mail election systems like the one that Oregon voters have been successfully using for some time now. To participate in the grant program, States must demonstrate that the vote by mail system they intend to implement includes the same elements that have made Oregon's system so successful, including a system for recording electronically each voter's registration and signature and a process for ensuring that the signature on each VBM ballot is verified against that voter's electronically recorded signature. States that decide to participate in the program have the option of adopting vote by mail State-wide, within a group of selected counties, or even in a single county. States transitioning to vote by mail State-wide will receive $2 million. States transitioning to VBM less than State-wide will receive $1 million. I think that vote by mail will improve the elections in every State that adopts it. But to be sure, my bill instructs the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the benefits of vote by mail and to produce a study comparing traditional voting methods and vote by mail. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to the Vote by Mail Act of 2007. I believe it can help ensure hassle-free elections and help rebuild confidence in our election system. Because right now, some folks feel like they are so powerless to do anything to fix things that they throw their hands in the air and walk away. And society suffers. For democracies to work there needs to be public engagement. But that requires a sense of investedness--unless I think of the government as my government, which means it's considering my interests and, more importantly, trying to solve them, it's pretty hard to stay invested. The sense of resignation, of frustration, even dislocation, expressed by some folks troubles me. And I consider it my job to foster a greater sense of public investment. This means making sure that the government works for everyone and that there are tangible results that you can show people so that they understand that it's their government and that it works for them. I think election reform like my vote by mail bill accomplishes this goal at the most basic level. Without fair, trouble-free elections, you've got serious problems. You don't even get past go. The public can't have confidence in its government if it doesn't have confidence in the system that elected that government. As we saw in 2000 in Florida, it is extremely difficult to untangle problems after Election Day so you really have to get it right the first time. Vote by mail helps ensures this. I am pleased to have my esteemed colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry as an original co-sponsor. I am also pleased that Congresswoman Susan David of California is introducing the House companion bill. I am also happy to announce that the American Association of People with Disabilities, the American Postal Workers Union, Common Cause, and the National Association of Postal Supervisors are publicly supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Under the Conrad budget, and the fair flat tax I have introduced, we could have a one-page 1040 form. People in the State of Ohio--I advise the Presiding Officer, our colleague from Ohio, and we are thrilled to have him in the Senate--could be filling out their taxes on a one-page form, ensuring progressivity, getting rid of the clutter, and holding down rates for everybody. Money magazine, when they took that form, said they could do it in 15 minutes. So all of the people in the State of Ohio and elsewhere who are pulling together their shoe boxes and their receipts right now in order to fill out their taxes, they could have an alternative, something based on a system we know works because Democrats and Republicans came together in 1986 in order to have such a tax system. The Conrad budget makes it possible for us to enact tax reform even before the Bush tax cuts of 2010 expire. On the health care side, the same bipartisan effort could occur: Democrats and Republicans could come together and fix health care. We establish a universal coverage fund, a health care reform fund, in this budget. It would allow, for example, for legislation, like the Healthy Americans Act which I introduced, that has brought together Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union and Steve Burd, the CEO of Safeway, to say: This is where we ought to start. It would allow for the Democrats and the Republicans--who signed a letter to the President of the United States and said: We want to work with you, Mr. President, to fix health care--it would allow for that important effort. A number of my colleagues on the Republican side have been extremely constructive in working with me and others to get that legislation before the Congress--not in 2009, when the popular wisdom suggests we will talk about health care, but in this session. But before that happens, because of the efforts in the Budget Committee that are included in the Conrad budget, we will first protect and expand the program that ensures justice for children in health care--the CHIP program. The CHIP reauthorization will come first. Passing CHIP legislation, however, is not going to diminish our efforts to work in a bipartisan fashion on overall health reform. Both Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad are on the floor now. I just want to let both of them know, and our very talented staff director, Mary Naylor, that I believe they have brought extraordinary professionalism to this effort. They reflect great credit on the Senate in terms of how the two of them and their staff work on this budget. I urge my colleagues to support the budget that is before us particularly because it lays the foundation for the Senate to tackle the two big domestic issues of our time, taxes and health care. There are a lot of issues that come before us. Certainly Iraq is the premier issue as it relates to the international front, but the big issues at home are taxes and health care. The Conrad budget allows for Democrats and Republicans to come together on taxes, as was done in 1986 for a system that gave everybody the chance to get ahead. I know the Presiding Officer, my friend from Ohio, has heard a lot about the whole topic of class warfare and the like. I think the Senator from Ohio hears the same thing I hear at home; that everybody ought to have the chance to get ahead. Everybody ought to have the chance to do it. We could do that with a tax reform program that is fair to all. This budget allows it, and it allows for Democrats and Republicans to come together on health care as well. I urge my colleagues to support the budget. I commend Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I begin by commending Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg for doing an exceptionally good job bringing extraordinary professionalism and thoughtfulness to this debate, particularly because Chairman Conrad and Senator Gregg have focused on what are the big issues for this country. Relating to the domestic side of the budget--we all know the big international issue is Iraq--the big issues are taxes and health care. One of the most attractive parts of the Conrad budget is that it lays the foundation for this country to look at big fixes to our tax system and to health care. If we listen to all the technical lingo that comes up over the course of this discussion--pay-go, firewalls, reserve funds; perhaps the staff director, who does such a terrific job, Mary Naylor, may know about some of the intricacies of these terms--it is a complicated world of ``budgetese.'' What we do understand, however, are taxes and health care. The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. One of the reasons I support the Conrad budget is that it lays the foundation for meaningful tax reform. The Presiding Officer certainly hears this across the country: The tax system is broken. We now have three changes in the Tax Code for every working day. There have been more than 14,000 changes to the Tax Code since the last comprehensive tax reform. We are all getting ready to do our taxes again. Americans this spring will spend more money filling out tax forms than our Government spends on higher education. Senator Conrad has pointed out the problem of tax havens and tax scams. There is an opportunity, as a result of this budget, to come together in a bipartisan way and fix the tax system. We know what needs to be done. First, we to have clear out all the clutter, the thousands and thousands of loopholes that have been added since the last tax reform effort. Second, we have to simplify the system. I have brought to the Chamber a one-page 1040 form that is in my fair flat tax legislation that I will be reintroducing, and I have had a number of good conversations with our friend from New Hampshire about it. This is a chance for Senators to work together in a bipartisan way. The people at Money Magazine, the financial magazine, took my 1040 form and filled out their taxes in 15 minutes. It will bring about a dramatic change in American taxation. So we clean out the clutter, make the system simpler, and then keep progressivity. There is a model for the Senate to follow. Senator Gregg and I heard a bit about it in the Budget Committee. Senator Grassley and I heard a lot about it in the Finance Committee, when then-Chairman Grassley held hearings on tax reform during the last session. That is to take those principles I outlined--clear out the loopholes, hold down the rates, simplify the system, and keep progressivity--and once again, because of this budget, fix American taxation in a bipartisan way. It is worth noting that every witness who came before the Senate Finance Committee during the last session to talk about taxation said building on the principles of the 1986 Tax Reform Act were the way to go. Witnesses came to the Budget Committee earlier this year. They all said this was the right direction, to build on the principles of 1986. I have indicated to Senator Gregg--and I am interested in working with him; he was part of the discussions that took place in the Budget Committee--it is worth wrapping this subject up by way of saying the budget that is before us now, the Conrad budget. It allows for the Senate to come together in a bipartisan way to fix the tax system. This is eminently doable. The President had a commission on taxation. My one-page 1040 form is 30 lines long. The President's is 34 lines long. For purposes of Government work, the two are equivalent. Democrats and Republicans can come together on this, simplify the tax system, do what was done in 1986 to clean out the clutter, hold down the rates, and keep progressivity so that everybody has a chance to get ahead. We have heard a lot of talk about class warfare. I am sure the Presiding Officer hears a great deal about this topic as he travels around the country. What Americans want is a system that gives everybody the opportunity to get ahead. That is what we ought to be working on. That is what this budget allows. In addition to taxes, this legislation allows for a bipartisan effort in this Congress to fix American health care, because of the reserve fund that is in the bill and constructive efforts that are going on in the Senate. In all deference to the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, and our other colleagues who are running for President of the United States, there is a feeling that this question of fixing American health care is something that will be dealt with in 2009. I am here to tell the Senate, I believe there is a good chance the Senate will come together in 2007. Five Democratic Senators and five Republican Senators sent a letter to the President, an important letter that involved both sides coming together. The Republicans who signed the letter said: If you are going to fix health care, you have to get everybody covered. If you don't get everybody covered, the costs for those who are uninsured get shifted to those who are insured. That is a statement about universal coverage. It is about 100 percent coverage. Our colleague from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, and others, have some good ideas about how to accomplish that. Republicans moved in a way that is going to allow for a comprehensive bipartisan effort to fix health care. Democrats did as well because the Democrats who signed the letter said: We need to modernize the marketplace. We have a tax system for health care that made sense for the 1940s; it doesn't make sense for 2007. The Tax Code for health coverage disproportionately rewards the most wealthy and promotes inefficiency. That is how the Federal government is spending $250 billion. The Democrats and Republicans came together and said: We want to work in a bipartisan way. Republican Senators such as Trent Lott and Mike Crapo and Bob Bennett and Jim DeMint and John Thune, Democrats such as Kent Conrad, Ken Salazar, Senator Cantwell, Senator Kohl, and myself said: With all due respect to our good friend from Illinois and our colleagues who are seeking the highest office in the land, we are going to do our best to fix health care in this Congress. We have an opportunity with our letter. The Presiding Officer knows I have introduced S. 334, the Healthy Americans Act. When I introduced that bill, the CEO of Safeway stood with me, Steve Burd, with more than 200,000 employees, as did Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, with almost 2 million members. Back in 1993 and 1994, business and labor were fighting each other. Now they are coming together. What a remarkable transition. In 1993, the business community said: We can't afford health care reform. In 2007, the business community is saying: We can't afford not to fix health care. We have laid a bipartisan foundation in the Conrad budget for Democrats and Republicans to come together in this session to fix health care. An issue came up as we were going forward on the reserve fund that highlights that while I think a comprehensive fix of American health care can be done, there are going to be challenges along the way. One of them is how to deal with the CHIP program, the program that helps our youngsters. There is great support on both sides of the aisle for the CHIP program. But there have been some in the Senate who have said: We have to do CHIP and health reform together. We have to do both together, and that is the way to approach it. The universal coverage legislation isn't quite ready to go. I am hopeful it will be ready before too long and that it will be bipartisan. The Conrad budget makes it possible for Senators to come together through a reserve fund for universal coverage. I also want to make sure that the millions of youngsters who need health care now are not forced to wait. We should not deny those youngsters justice right now, when the need, as the distinguished Senator from Illinois knows, is so great. What we said in the budget is that after SCHIP is resolved--and I hope it will be very shortly--and we meet those urgent needs of millions of youngsters, then we proceed to the question of bipartisan efforts to ensure there is comprehensive health reform. Those are the two big issues of our time--tax reform and health care--that relate to the domestic side of the budget. The Conrad budget leaves space for Democrats and Republicans to come together and fix our tax system and fix American health care. (Mr. BROWN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, about the most red, white and blue, patriotic action our Nation could take is to develop a new energy policy that reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. And the biggest source of our oil dependence is transportation--the cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that our citizens drive every day. That's why I am pleased to be introducing a bill that will help citizens who want to do their part to reduce oil dependence by commuting to work by bicycle. I am joined in sponsoring the Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 by Senators Snowe, Collins, Durbin, Menendez, Inouye, Enzi and Sanders. I know that many people in our country want to do something concrete about our Nation's dependence on oil and gas. As gas prices continue to climb again this spring, more and more people are going to be looking for actions that they can take to free themselves from this dependency. The bill I am introducing today gives Americans more incentive to give up the cars and trucks that they drive to and from work every day and get on their bicycles instead. According to recent Census reports, more than 500,000 people throughout the United States commute to work by bicycle. They are freeing themselves from sitting in traffic. They are saving energy and overcoming their dependence on oil and gas. They are getting exercise; avoiding obesity and helping us keep our air clean and safe to breathe. Yet, they are commuting by bicycle at their own expense. Their fellow employees who take mass transit to and from work have an incentive created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century that enables their employers to pay for their bus or subway ride. And those who commute to work by car or truck can receive tax-free parking benefits provided by their employers. These incentives are great for mass transit commuters or those who drive to work. But they also create a financial disincentive for those riding their bikes to and from their jobs. The Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 will eliminate this financial disincentive and level the commuting field for bicyclists. The bill extends the fringe benefits that employers can offer their employees for commuting by public transit, car or truck to those who ride their bicycles to and from their jobs. Our bill amends the tax code so that public and private employers can offer their employees a monthly benefit payment that will help them cover the costs of riding their bikes, instead of driving and parking their cars where they work. The bill also provides employers the flexibility to set their own level of benefit payment up to a specified amount. That way, employers and their employees can decide how much of an incentive they need to stop driving and start riding their bikes. Those who currently ride the bus and/or subway to work would also gain an extra incentive to ride their bikes. Employers can deduct the cost of their benefit payments from their taxable income. This reduces the taxes that they pay to the Federal Government. And, in turn, employees will receive anywhere from $40-$110 per month as a non-taxable benefit, to help them pay for the costs of riding their bikes. This is a fair and modest proposal that will reward employees who ride their bikes to and from their jobs. Our Senate bill is a companion bill to a bill being introduced by my fellow Oregonian, Congressman Earl Blumenauer. He has dozens of co- sponsors from both sides of the aisle and every part of the United States eager to offer bicycle commuters the same incentive that I want to offer to those who take mass transit or drive. In addition, our bill is supported by many regional and national bicycling organizations such as Bikes Belong, Cycle Oregon, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, the League of American Bicyclists, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, Transportation Alternatives and hundreds of Capitol Hill employees who commute by bike to work every day. When you look around our cities, the taxpayers have paid millions of dollars for bike trails in all of America's urban areas and major job markets. Now, bicycle commuters will have an extra incentive to make greater use of this public investment to commute to and from their jobs. I look forward to working with our colleagues to enact this legislation to reward citizens doing their part to put us on the road to oil independence by biking to work. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.